[lemetier]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Got a link?
My link is to the official EU law page and shows that it my link is still in force...

https://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs.html

No.45
No.98
No.99
No.123
No.128

They're, at the moment, broken down into addenda (some are simply a sentence fragment correction).

A full updated comprehensive revision using the new phraseology is coming in the next year (limited information can be seen in the GRE section).

If still in doubt, F90 isn't available with Headlamp Cleaning and the Principle Passing Beam on the inboard unit measures 3448.9lm in the mid field.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by lemetier

https://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs.html

No.45
No.98
No.99
No.123
No.128

They're, at the moment, broken down into addenda (some are simply a sentence fragment correction).

A full updated comprehensive revision using the new phraseology is coming in the next year (limited information can be seen in the GRE section).

Do you have a more narrowed down link? Or an article/paragraph where the text is that you displayed?
In no. 48 still reads in art 6.2.9:

"Dipped-beam headlamps with a light source or LED module( s) producing
the principal dipped-beam and having a total objective luminous flux which
exceeds 2,000 lumen shall only be installed in conjunction with the
installation of headlamp cleaning device( s) according to Regulation No. 45. 11"
(no. 45 displayes how the cleaning system should work, with spray patterns etc)

Seems very very clear to me, and is exactly the same text as displayed in EU regulations.
I think all EU countries (and a lot of other countries) follow/acknowledge UNECE directives. US however not I believe

If still in doubt, F90 isn't available with Headlamp Cleaning and the Principle Passing Beam on the inboard unit is at 3448.9lm measured at the hotspot point.

It doesnt work that way.
Lumen (lm) is per definition the total output of a light source (total quantity of visible light).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_(unit)
That is, per definition, not possible to 'measure at the hot spot point'.

What you mean is the physical unit Candela (or possibly lux), the physical unit for luminous intensity (lux is luminous flux over a specified area).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candela
But that falls outside of the regulations I believe.

This is a commonly made mistake, but very logical in relation to headlight output regulations. As I said, the regulation regarding washers is to prevent diffracting light to the oncoming traffic (at dipped beam, full beam falls outside of this regulation as there is never diffracted light from full beam on oncoming traffic). That is a result of the complete light output of the headlight at dipped beam. If you concentrate your beam better, you can get a higher luminous intensity at the area that you want without increasing the # of lumen (being the total output). Thats what they're trying to create with led headlights and laser headlights. Getting a higher luminous intensity without a high total output (# of lumen) of the headlight.

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Do you have a more narrowed down link? Or an article/paragraph where the text is that you displayed?

It doesnt work that way.
Lumen (lm) is per definition the total output of a light source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_(unit)
That is, per definition, not possible to 'measure at the hot spot'.

What you mean is the physical unit Candela, the physical unit for luminous intensity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candela
But that falls outside of the regulations I believe.

This is a commonly made mistake.

Sure when I have a chance. It's a PITA to use that site on my phone. I do remember its an addendum to be republished with 4-8 paragraphs specifically for the cleaning system struck out and to be replaced.

Hotspot was the wrong choice of adjectives so I edited to Mid Field (the 25m - 50m distance of Zones II and IV).

Candela is the primary unit used for vehicle photometries.

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

This is a commonly made mistake, but very logical in relation to headlight output regulations. As I said, the regulation regarding washers is to prevent diffracting light to the oncoming traffic (at dipped beam, full beam falls outside of this regulation as there is never diffracted light from full beam on oncoming traffic). That is a result of the complete light output of the headlight at dipped beam. If you concentrate your beam better, you can get a higher luminous intensity at the area that you want without increasing the # of lumen (being the total output). Thats what they're trying to create with led headlights and laser headlights. Getting a higher luminous intensity without a high total output (# of lumen) of the headlight.

That's why the units of measurement and photometric points are being revised as well. The reason why they've allowed the Headlamp cleaning system requirement in combination with AFSi (intelligent) to be removed, is that it further dips the passing beam in response to traffic. I also believe this doesn't apply to vertical mounting positions >1200mm.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by lemetier

Sure when I have a chance. It's a PITA to use that site on my phone.

I edited my post; UNECE still literally says that its valid for leds exceeding 2000lm, in no. 48 art 6.2.9.

BTW Canada only follows part of UNECE. For example not No. 48 (or 45) but do No. 98 for example. Strange.

Originally Posted by lemetier

That's why the units of measurement and photometric points

Photometric points? whats that? Do you have a physical unit formula deriving to SI? I'm not good with trivial terms but do know my physics...
As far as regulations go regarding this cleaning system matter, all I see is stuff in lumen. (thus total light output)

Originally Posted by lemetier

Hotspot was the wrong choice of adjectives so I edited to Mid Field (the 25m - 50m distance of Zones II and IV).
.

Lumen in the mid field still doesnt make sense physically speaking. Lumen is the total output of a light (actually 1lm = 1 candela x 1 steradian). What you mean is either Candela (the amount of light in a certain angular trajectory, so intensity of a light, as in beam) or Lux (the amount of light on a certain area (per m² so to say).
2 lightsources with exactly the same amount of lumen output can give a totally different light intensity/illumination at a certain distance. It all depends on how the light is focussed. A light with very very low lumen can still create a very high intensity beam (think laser and such).
The amount of lumen used in the legislation has no direct relation to what light intensity is measured with that f90 headlight in the hotspot or midfield or whatever. (do you have a link to the report about those 3448.9lm? Then I can maybe see what mixup they did in their measurement/calculation or writing of the report)

But all legislation regarding washer cleaning systems on headlights is dependant on the amount of lumen, which makes sense as that determines the total amount of possible diffraction hindering oncoming traffic if a headlight is dirty. That effect of diffraction by a dirty headlight is also a little bit akin to how lumen output of a lightsource sometimes is measured (without using elaborate sensor arrays), by converting the output to a total diffuse radiation pattern, which shows that it's the right physical unit to use in this matter.

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I edited my post; UNECE still literally says that its valid for leds exceeding 2000lm, in no. 48 art 6.2.9.

BTW Canada only follows part of UNECE. For example not No. 48 (or 45) but do No. 98 for example. Strange.

No. 48 is for non AFS.

Canada CMVSS was just revised this year.

UNECE WP.29 is dropping ECE to reflect the global nature of its mission as all countries with the exception of the US recognize most, of not all, the Global Technical Standards.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by lemetier

No. 48 is for non AFS.

Are we talking about the same document here?!?
My No.48 clearly states (in art. 6.22.9.1):

"An AFS shall be permitted only in conjunction with the installation of
headlamp cleaning device(s) according to Regulation No. 45 19 for at least
those lighting units, which are indicated under item 9.3. of the
communication form conforming to the model in Annex 1 to Regulation
No. 123, if the total objective luminous flux of the light sources of these units
exceeds 2,000 lm per side, and which contribute to the class C (basic)
passing-beam."

Seems pretty clear to me. again 2000lm threshold, to be measured in class c passing beam
What does your art. 6.22.9.1 say?

Originally Posted by lemetier

UNECE WP.29 is dropping ECE to reflect the global nature of its mission as all countries with the exception of the US recognize most, of not all, the Global Technical Standards.

They may want that, but from all of NA, only canada recognizes part of the documents (only 16 documents if I'm correct). US and mexico none.
Countries like india and china (so thats almost half the planets population) also not. (I'm talking here purely about WP29)
If I count correctly its a total of 56 countries that fully acknowledges WP19 ruleset. Thats not a lot on a total of 197 (28 percent to be precise)

So its more of a wish than a fact (on other rulesets support might be bigger though and who knows whats to come)
But at least all of the civilized world is in

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Are we talking about the same document here?!?
My No.48 clearly states (in art. 6.22.9.1):

"An AFS shall be permitted only in conjunction with the installation of
headlamp cleaning device(s) according to Regulation No. 45 19 for at least
those lighting units, which are indicated under item 9.3. of the
communication form conforming to the model in Annex 1 to Regulation
No. 123, if the total objective luminous flux of the light sources of these units
exceeds 2,000 lm per side, and which contribute to the class C (basic)
passing-beam."

Seems pretty clear to me. again 2000lm threshold, to be measured in class c passing beam
What does your art. 6.22.9.1 say?

They may want that, but from all of NA, only canada recognizes part of the documents (only 16 documents). US and mexico none.
Countries like india and china (so thats almost half the planets population) also not.
If I count correctly its a total of 56 coutries that fully acknowledges its ruleset. Thats not a lot on a total of 197 (28 percent to be precise)

So its more of a wish than a fact

"Mine" are very different (if I had them with me) as I'm an appointed WP.29 representative. I'm not looking at anything right now, this is all from memory.

48 is rather old and not used much of at all anymore.

AFS has different generations which are reflected by which Regulation No they're certified under

AFS
AFS+
AFS2
AFS2+
AFSi
AFSi+
μAFS

Etc etc.

1958 Member states vs. countries that use/recognize the standards are not the same.

Wish all you want. Picked the wrong person to try and debate (incorrectly interpreted) semantics with.

You're still wrong with there not being an E89 35is Manual being made. That was the ONLY type produced.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by lemetier

"Mine" are very different (if I had them with me) as I'm an appointed WP.29 representative. I'm not looking at anything right now, this is all from memory.

48 is rather old and not used much of at all anymore.

AFS has different generations which are reflected by which Regulation No they're certified under

AFS
AFS+
AFS2
AFS2+
AFSi
AFSi+
μAFS

Etc etc.

1958 Member states vs. countries that use/recognize the standards are not the same.

Wish all you want. Picked the wrong person to try and debate (incorrectly interpreted) semantics with.

I'm not wishing anything...
I just download the documents of the UNECE site. Did I download the wrong document?
It says nowhere that its not valid. And thus valid in the EU. If its listed, its valid, regardless whether old or not.
So give me a No. ruleset and article number that clearly states that No. 48 art. 6.22.9.1 is not valid anymore. That must be a very easy effort for you to do, being what you do and all.
If I can list a valid full quote adressing the exact matter at hand.....

You're still wrong with there not being an E89 35is Manual being made. That was the ONLY type produced.

What? what are you referring to and what has that to do with this topic?!?
Are you drunk or so? Or is this some random text under your ctrl+v that got mixed in here?
This is pretty confusing

[ShocknAwe]

Good riddance. What an awful "feature"

[Rahstyles.Com]

Have more of something is always better then not having them!

[KTN]

Originally Posted by Rahstyles.Com

Have more of something is always better then not having them!

Gotta be mindful of STDs when using the "catch 'em all" slogan though.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by ShocknAwe

Good riddance. What an awful "feature"

I bet you'd have a different perspective if you lived in say, Vermont. They're a very wonderful feature when (it's dark and) the roads are sloppy... Kinda like windshield washers. 💡

[ShocknAwe]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

I bet you'd have a different perspective if you lived in say, Vermont. They're a very wonderful feature when (it's dark and) the roads are sloppy... Kinda like windshield washers. 💡

Used to live in New England. The feature is totally unnecessary.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by ShocknAwe

The feature is totally unnecessary.

Translation: clean headlamps are totally unnecessary.

I totally disagree.

[JohnEnglish]

I love the headlight washers, that sucks they'd take them away. They are really useful in the winter.

[Rahstyles.Com]

Originally Posted by KTN

Gotta be mindful of STDs when using the "catch 'em all" slogan though.

I knew some somebody was going to make a smartazz comment..

You know what i mean.